why no raf gunships
The problem is that we're very much like the USAF when they stumbled into Vietnam in the mid 60's; an Air Force obsessed with technology and peer enemies. COIN and the like were dirty words as you could do them with cheap platforms, with good payload / endurance. The USAF were proudly buying F111s / F4s as the newest shiny toys, and promptly found themselves in a "dirty" war. The result? Eventually when they realised that the war was going to drag on they dragged the Spads out of AMARC and, horror of horrors, had to buy the A7 from the navy....In the post war "wash up" the US Army scared the sh1t out of the USAF with the Cheyenne programme and effectively blackmailed the USAF into buying the A10. The USAF have been looking for an excuse to can the A10 ever since and buy more shiny F16s but it, annoyingly, keeps being useful so now they are finally going to bite the bullet and make the A10 the ac it always should have been.
Now the RAF really doesn't want to get dragged into the "dirty war" properly. We can spare some GR9s, and will send some Typhoons for obligatory DSOs/DFCs and endless RAF News photoshoots. However, the Airships must be secretly hoping that this nasty little war doesn't persist long enough to have an effect on future plans. That would mean more emphasis on MRA4 as a TST platform, the possibility of Gunships (you can defend them properly if you fit the right kit) and even the thought A10 style dedicated COIN aircraft...the horror! Even worse, the Apache might prove itself as the weapon of choice.........! Of course, the Budget wont go up, so something else would have to go..........
Now the RAF really doesn't want to get dragged into the "dirty war" properly. We can spare some GR9s, and will send some Typhoons for obligatory DSOs/DFCs and endless RAF News photoshoots. However, the Airships must be secretly hoping that this nasty little war doesn't persist long enough to have an effect on future plans. That would mean more emphasis on MRA4 as a TST platform, the possibility of Gunships (you can defend them properly if you fit the right kit) and even the thought A10 style dedicated COIN aircraft...the horror! Even worse, the Apache might prove itself as the weapon of choice.........! Of course, the Budget wont go up, so something else would have to go..........
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Evalua8tor,
You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.
I have just read an article about WW2 transport aircrafirt in Air Power. Quite apposite.
First the RAF procurement was neglected in the inter-war years. Then we concentrated, or more properly over-concentrated on fighter aircraft at the expense of bomber aircraft and bomber aircraft to the exclusion of transport aircraft.
The only parachute capable aircraft after we formed a parachute division were bomber aircraft that could carry 8-10 men!
Eventually we went to the US and persuaded them to provide C47s. A good parachuting platform but we still needed to modify heavy bombers as glider tugs.
Effectively we had no capacity to build transport types as we had had no perceived need. In its way this was why, with the exception of the Comet, that we were always late in post-war passenger aircraft.
Now we are concentrating on sexy fast pointy things for the future when we need unsexy slow noisy things now. As the only source? Well?
You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.
I have just read an article about WW2 transport aircrafirt in Air Power. Quite apposite.
First the RAF procurement was neglected in the inter-war years. Then we concentrated, or more properly over-concentrated on fighter aircraft at the expense of bomber aircraft and bomber aircraft to the exclusion of transport aircraft.
The only parachute capable aircraft after we formed a parachute division were bomber aircraft that could carry 8-10 men!
Eventually we went to the US and persuaded them to provide C47s. A good parachuting platform but we still needed to modify heavy bombers as glider tugs.
Effectively we had no capacity to build transport types as we had had no perceived need. In its way this was why, with the exception of the Comet, that we were always late in post-war passenger aircraft.
Now we are concentrating on sexy fast pointy things for the future when we need unsexy slow noisy things now. As the only source? Well?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Some-r-set
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, maybe when 'Kieth' (A400) comes in, we could study the options for putting weapon systems on board? More space, load carrying etc?
On another note-
read on the BDSUS site that our spenditure on budget was the same amount the US DoD spends on communications. In 2005 our spenditure was 2.5% of the GDP.
On another note-
read on the BDSUS site that our spenditure on budget was the same amount the US DoD spends on communications. In 2005 our spenditure was 2.5% of the GDP.
As a staunch member of the SH Force, I have to say that the Apache, and the AAC are doing a damn fine job in the Sandpit. I can certainly see them as the platform of choice. They need more hours though!
There, I've said it!
There, I've said it!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a country the size of the UK and for an Air Force the size of the RAF tying up resources in an AC130 type aircraft would be ludicrus. The Apache is doing sterling work as has already been said what would probably be useful is more of them, More spares and More hours for them and the Harrier and a few corrections to errors made in GR9 planning like lack of a cannon.
If we as a nation were to buy some AC130's how long would they be likley to be in service? and do we see our selves still being in the sand pit for that length of time. And as is being pointed out in other threads the cold war could be on the horizon.
If we as a nation were to buy some AC130's how long would they be likley to be in service? and do we see our selves still being in the sand pit for that length of time. And as is being pointed out in other threads the cold war could be on the horizon.
Nurse,
How long are we liely to be involved in the sandpit(s)? IMHO a disturbingly long time. Witness Condi Rices attempts last week to steel NATO for a "long counter-insurgency war". If this war lasts another 10-15 years (not unreasonable considered the lack of clear enemy CoGs and their fanaticism) then shouldn't we be investing in capabilities now that will stop our people becoming casualties in 5-8 years time?
The sort of Rhetoric that Putin spouted last week is just what CAS, BAES and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex (as Ike put it) wants to hear. In reality, if the Bear gets shifty, 232 TypHoons are really not going to make a difference, and, if we are genuinely concerned about a new Cold War when is the GDP spent of defence going to assume the 3.5-4% level again?
An all-new FW Gunship based on A400 or C130J could be in service for an awfully long time. The sort of "service" they could provide in just the ISTAR role (to relieve other assets) would make them earn their keep. Put a decent up to date DAS on the thing (new MWS/LAIRCM/IRSS etc)so you can operate it in daylight, a good TI /LLTV turret and away you go.
ISTAR, TST, CAS all in one platform with deep magazines and excellent endurance.
Meanwhile, yes, let's get more AH and crews to fly them rather than fretting about Colonels' taxis....
How long are we liely to be involved in the sandpit(s)? IMHO a disturbingly long time. Witness Condi Rices attempts last week to steel NATO for a "long counter-insurgency war". If this war lasts another 10-15 years (not unreasonable considered the lack of clear enemy CoGs and their fanaticism) then shouldn't we be investing in capabilities now that will stop our people becoming casualties in 5-8 years time?
The sort of Rhetoric that Putin spouted last week is just what CAS, BAES and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex (as Ike put it) wants to hear. In reality, if the Bear gets shifty, 232 TypHoons are really not going to make a difference, and, if we are genuinely concerned about a new Cold War when is the GDP spent of defence going to assume the 3.5-4% level again?
An all-new FW Gunship based on A400 or C130J could be in service for an awfully long time. The sort of "service" they could provide in just the ISTAR role (to relieve other assets) would make them earn their keep. Put a decent up to date DAS on the thing (new MWS/LAIRCM/IRSS etc)so you can operate it in daylight, a good TI /LLTV turret and away you go.
ISTAR, TST, CAS all in one platform with deep magazines and excellent endurance.
Meanwhile, yes, let's get more AH and crews to fly them rather than fretting about Colonels' taxis....
Apaches are very sophisticated and very expensive, doing a fantastic job but they were a cold war weapon and I doubt that we can afford many more. Given the low weapon sophistication of the enemy in Afghanistan, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off buying a squadron or 5 of Black Hawks for the SH force & just fitting them with rockets, cannons & mini guns, like the US Army used Huey's in Vietnam. The SH force would get extra assets & they would have the flexibility to support troops on the ground with firepower.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On a question of the AC130 guns, it is probably not necessary to re-engineer the chain guns etc as the aircraft height will enable a greater range.
With the 105 however a normal ground gun has to be strong enough to hold the charge that will lift the shell to its apogee. As the C130 is firing downwards in direct fire mode it follows that the charge can be significantly reduced. Similarly the whole breech and barrel can, I would guess, be reduced in strenght and weight too as the stresses can be lower.
Does the AC130 have a special lightweight airborne use only 105?
With the 105 however a normal ground gun has to be strong enough to hold the charge that will lift the shell to its apogee. As the C130 is firing downwards in direct fire mode it follows that the charge can be significantly reduced. Similarly the whole breech and barrel can, I would guess, be reduced in strenght and weight too as the stresses can be lower.
Does the AC130 have a special lightweight airborne use only 105?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First the RAF procurement was neglected in the inter-war years. Then we concentrated, or more properly over-concentrated on fighter aircraft at the expense of bomber aircraft and bomber aircraft to the exclusion of transport aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the AC130 have a special lightweight airborne use only 105?
From that Future Weapons series:
AC130-pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T73nkuAgnoQ
pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7nk4Zmq1U
Andyy,
Nice idea to buy DAP style Blackhawks but a few problems. One is money. Not just to buy the airframes (they are relatively cheap though) but also the cost of recruiting, training and retaining the aircrew...unless you scrap all thought of Flynx, retire the asthmatic AH7/9 Lynx early and re-equip the AAC with it. In addition, another type in the inventory is always an added Training and Logisitic burden. The Canadians are thinking of going down this route with their CH-146s in the stle of the USMC UH-1N escort / CAS role. However, the 412 style airframe is not particularly sprightly once you weigh it down with wpns/sensors/DAS/armour so they might struggle in AFG.
Maple 01, I think that PN was referring to the almost endless stream of fighter procurement in the 1930s as Fury gave way to Gauntlet to Gladiator to Hurricane via some hiccups, ie Defiant. Clearly the crash monopalne fighter / Home Chain programmes were incredibly prescient (perhaps like we are talking about a long, dirty COIN / CAS war?) but there is no denying that the quality of Parachute aircraft (eg Whitley) and glider tug (Stirlings were still in production in 1944!!) was as a result of possible over-emphasis on fighter type aircraft during the inter-war years. Even the "bombers" ie Blenheim / Hampden were "fighter like" leaving the Wellington and Whitley as the only genuine bombers at the outbreak of war. Mind you, the Stirling turned like a fighter as the spec demanded it fit in 100ft wide hangar doors...
Nice idea to buy DAP style Blackhawks but a few problems. One is money. Not just to buy the airframes (they are relatively cheap though) but also the cost of recruiting, training and retaining the aircrew...unless you scrap all thought of Flynx, retire the asthmatic AH7/9 Lynx early and re-equip the AAC with it. In addition, another type in the inventory is always an added Training and Logisitic burden. The Canadians are thinking of going down this route with their CH-146s in the stle of the USMC UH-1N escort / CAS role. However, the 412 style airframe is not particularly sprightly once you weigh it down with wpns/sensors/DAS/armour so they might struggle in AFG.
Maple 01, I think that PN was referring to the almost endless stream of fighter procurement in the 1930s as Fury gave way to Gauntlet to Gladiator to Hurricane via some hiccups, ie Defiant. Clearly the crash monopalne fighter / Home Chain programmes were incredibly prescient (perhaps like we are talking about a long, dirty COIN / CAS war?) but there is no denying that the quality of Parachute aircraft (eg Whitley) and glider tug (Stirlings were still in production in 1944!!) was as a result of possible over-emphasis on fighter type aircraft during the inter-war years. Even the "bombers" ie Blenheim / Hampden were "fighter like" leaving the Wellington and Whitley as the only genuine bombers at the outbreak of war. Mind you, the Stirling turned like a fighter as the spec demanded it fit in 100ft wide hangar doors...
Evalua8tor,
You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.
You are almost certainly right. CAS is on record as saying he has his eye on the future, that the current operations are not what we will be doing in the future. This may well be more a question of hope over experience.
As to the Hercules gunship this is an over specialised weapon system that emerged from the "Puff the Magic Dragon" of the Vietnam era. Whatever the platform chosen, the lessons of that era, when WW2 Skyraiders were used in a similarly total Air Superiority environment, must be re-learned.
Did Mummy not breast feed you AIDU?
OK AIDU, have you actually operated with UK Apaches in theatre? Should be an easy enough yes or no question.
OK AIDU, have you actually operated with UK Apaches in theatre? Should be an easy enough yes or no question.
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 9th Feb 2008 at 14:32.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Actually it was the author of the article, drawing on numerous sources, that suggested that the ratio of 4:1 was wrong. Even when transports were ordered what was delivered was too few.
Read the Air Power article itself. Quite fascinating. We were so involved in procurement for the present threat that we neglected procurement of other types too.
You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?
Read the Air Power article itself. Quite fascinating. We were so involved in procurement for the present threat that we neglected procurement of other types too.
You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A10's are clearly the fast air weapon of choice by those on the ground in the Stan and there is no requirement for the UK to buy AC130 or similar as our American friends have brought that capability to the party.
Unfortunately we do not have unending money for defence and so will always rely on allies bringing specialist capability to supplement and enhance our own.
Perhaps we should focus more on some niche capability that our allies would always rely on us for !!!
Any suggestions?
Unfortunately we do not have unending money for defence and so will always rely on allies bringing specialist capability to supplement and enhance our own.
Perhaps we should focus more on some niche capability that our allies would always rely on us for !!!
Any suggestions?
as our American friends have brought that capability to the party.
We were so involved in procurement for the present threat that we neglected procurement of other types too.
You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?
You could argue that CAS/CDS/CNS are avoiding this by procuring for the future but that is perhaps plain wrong one way as the other was plain wrong the other ?